UK: David Davis resigning.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Gothmog

Most likely the concessions will be bitterly contested and a call for another vote raised around these. But I think it’s very unlikely we will see another referendum. If they thought the majority would vote to leave they wouldn’t have had one in the first place. It’s more likely that the concessions will keep everything in place pretty much as it is in terms of legislation IMO.

Thanks.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Gothmog

But , is it going to come down to another Brexit vote even after Brexit was voted for ?

No but it could signal the end for Theresa May as PM.

In his resignation letter, Mr Davis told Mrs May that "the current trend of policy and tactics" was making it "look less and less likely" that the UK would leave the customs union and single market.

He said he was "unpersuaded" that the government's negotiating approach "will not just lead to further demands for concessions" from Brussels.

Mr Davis, who was appointed Brexit Secretary in 2016, said: "The general direction of policy will leave us in at best a weak negotiating position, and possibly an inescapable one."

The resignation and words of David Davis opens the way for Euro skeptic Tory MPs to do something that should have been done long ago .... bring her down.

Brexiteer MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said it would be "very difficult" for Mrs May's plans to win the backing of MPs without Mr Davis. He told BBC 5 Live: "These proposals will have to come to the House of Commons in legislation and the question is 'will they command support from Conservative MPs?' "And I think without David Davis there, without his imprimatur, it will be very difficult for them to get the support of Conservative MPs and therefore the prime minister would be well advised to reconsider them."
www.bbc.co.uk...

I hope they do it sooner rather than later as time is short , we need someone who can stand up the the EU not acquiesce.

Thanks.
I had read articles on David Davis and it seemed yo tie in with May and the Brexit situation.

a reply to: ForteanOrg



Do tell who your optician is??

I think I could use a pair of 'rose coloured spectacles' like yours!

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

Problem: all is due at the 29 of march 2019. However the status of transition is. If a smaller part is leaving a larger part without preparations, how can this be worse for the larger part?

We Brexiters are well prepared to take our chances.

"The larger part? I presume you mean the EU?

Angela Merkle and her patched up governing?

Greece Italy Spain? successful economies?

Poland and Hungary putting up borders?

EU paying Turkey to take in migrants?

Italy refusing to be a reception area to any more migrants?

Crime figures are being hidden ... not reported?

The way I see it the "larger part" doesnt have a lot going for it!!

In my opinion, the UK wants to go cherry picking. Which really does not fly with the EU.

The UK just wants OUT It is the EU clinging on for

financial reasons?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Care to comment?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

We won't be economically destroyed.

We we likely go down a different and my opinion better economic route that many hard brexateers have suggested.

We could slash our cooperation tax and turn into a giant tax haven ( which would piss the EU off to no end being on there door step). This would cause a massive economic boom.

Basically we turn into a giant version of Singapore or the Cayman islands which have a far higher standard of living we do.

Plus what's the point of our current cooperation 17% tax when no one pays it? May as well slash it to 10 or even 5% and make everyone pay that as you will get more money.

Cayman islands (which we own) has 0% income or cooperation tax but manages to provide universal healthcare and education , welfare safety net as well as provide a excellent standard of living. There tax money made through VAT which works as people gave more money to spend due to not paying other taxes.
And that's all I care about my standard of living.

a reply to: Freeborn

You may not have noticed it, but Hitler is long dead, so I don't think he'll be pulling anything

And making unfounded statements like you do is merely that: making unfounded statements. I could just as well (and with more right) say that the EU is a very efficient organisation; for example, the total number of clerks working for the NHS is more than that working for the entire EU. Your cry for 'self-determination' is ridiculous: the nations as we have them today do not honour self-determination either. Brexit is the best example: roughly half of all Brits voted AGAINST the Brexit, still, their voices are silenced by the simple fact they are part of a nation in which, at one point in time, a slight majority voted in favour of it.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Bollocks.

A majority is a majority no matter which way you look at it.

Please give me examples of EU 'efficiency'.

You know that you've been given numerous examples of EU inefficiencies, lack of transparency, corrupt dealings and accounting, cronyism and undemocratic practices over the years.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

And making unfounded statements like you do is merely that: making unfounded statements. I could just as well (and with more right) say that the EU is a very efficient organisation;

You could do and you have every right to your 'opinion' ..... but there are a number

of countries in the EU who are unhappy with the policies they are having to follow.

Apart from half a dozen of those countries the others are in it for economical

reasons? You could say bound by poverty ..... paid for in the same manner as serfs.

Like everything that doesn't modernise evolve or change with the times, becomes

obsolete.

Your cry for 'self-determination' is ridiculous: the nations as we have them today do not honour self-determination either.

Which nations would they be?

Brexit is the best example: roughly half of all Brits voted AGAINST the Brexit, still, their voices are silenced by the simple fact they are part of a nation in which, at one point in time, a slight majority voted in favour of it.

Thats democracy ....Their voices weren't silenced majority won, and I would wager

IF another vote was taken now the majority for leave would be far greater. I have

watched debates and spoken to many people who voted to stay in the EU who have

changed their minds to leave because of the attitude of Brussels and the EU. I have

as yet to come across it the other way around a leaver changing to remain

Where is the Queen currently? If she's in London, we need to watch movements to and from Buckingham Palace.
Party leadership is so institutionalised now, but if the system breaks down, it isn't absolutely necessary for the call to go to an elected Party leader. It just has to be someone who can command a majority in the Commons.
"Under advice", she could offer the task to someone who could form an emergency coalition, preferably backing one side of the argument so that the process could be carried through.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Theoretically in exceptional circumstances The Queen can dismiss Parliament.

The Armed Forces swear allegiance to The Monarch and not Parliament.

If there was enough discontent with the Parliamentary Executive - The Cabinet - within the ranks of senior Civil Servants, Judiciary, Armed Forces, Police, Clergy etc then there is a remote possibility that The House of Commons could be dismissed and another government sought.....but I think its a very, very remote possibility.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Mays government is turning into a bit of a bad joke.

This is like a ticking time bomb, only a matter of time before she is forced out in some way.

The whole Brexit thing is breaking the country, quite literally, its going to break the UK.

Personally I believe we need a second referendum on the final deal but so long as May is in power and a bunch of euro-skeptics sit in the cabinet thats not going to happen.

Whole thing is a mess.

Hard Brexit will kill this country if we pull out of the customs union, we are going to be economically destroyed.

A second referendum isn't going to change anything. Those who lost their jobs and industries to EU trade agreements, fishing quotas and open borders immigration policies aren't going to change their minds. Nor are those who can't afford to buy a house. Those that benefit from EU subsidies (set-aside grants for farmland), city financial services, MEP's with EU pensions, and perks aren't going to change either.

It's basically International London vs. The rest of the country.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Bollocks.

A majority is a majority no matter which way you look at it.

Please give me examples of EU 'efficiency'.

You know that you've been given numerous examples of EU inefficiencies, lack of transparency, corrupt dealings and accounting, cronyism and undemocratic practices over the years.

Listen, Brexit is happening regardless and i support that, even though i voted against it.

However, i said at the time (before the vote occured) that for such an important decision for the future of the nation, you can't have a small majority - a decent figure would need reaching (at least 60%), otherwise it would lead to issues like these.

It is ridiculuous that the nation can literally be split apart over a couple of %. I dread to think what the nation will be like in 10 years if Brexit goes bad - people will be at each others throats.

a reply to: Flavian

So if the vote had been so close in favour of remaining in the EU would you have advocated another referendum?
If not what would you propose?

It should have been agreed beforehand that any mandate would require say a 55 / 45 split. If that wasn't achieved then another ballot should have been arranged.

But that was never mentioned because the remain camp were so convinced that they would win.....but despite all the scare tactics and Project Fear the British people saw through the bull# and voted to free themselves from the EU.

Brexit means Brexit....anything less is a betrayal of the British people.

a reply to: Freeborn

Like the Scottish Independence vote - a certain percentage had to be attained because it had such far reaching consequences.

I think the only reason they didn't include a similar clause for the referendum is because they genuinely didn't think people would vote to leave.

Brexit does mean Brexit but a 2% split in the country means it is going to be a disaster for all sides - it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

In answer to your question, no i wouldn't have advocated another vote. The reason being is simple - the onus is on the leave camp to demonstrate a clear mandate to initiate such drastic national change. 2% margin doesn't demonstrate that mandate, meaning we are now in a position where it is a fudge for the Brexiters and a fudge for the Remainers.

This is nothing like an election. In an election, if people don't like the way the country is being run, they can vote in another party at the next election. You simply don't get that option regarding Brexit, hence the need for a clear mandate.

The whole thing is a joke, whichever side you are on. And i really don't buy the much parrotted line that "anything else is a betrayal of the British people" - that is complete poppycock and would only be true if there was a clear mandate. Even the most ardent of Brexiters (politically) accepts there is no clear mandate - there is a small majority.

a reply to: Freeborn

I think it should have been a super-majority.

You are right, it was Vote Remains fault, Cameron and his cronies had the power to say that such a move would require a 60% margin or so to pass.

I blame vote remain for Brexit above everyone else and I say that as a someone who voted remain. They were just too arrogant, failed to see what the issues where, failed to actually explain properly what would happen if we did remain and then they also fell into the trap of being so scared of being accused of fear mongering that they never fully articulated the consequences of voting leave. Project Fear was a genius stroke by vote leave, it meant that every time someone for vote leave tried to highlight the economic catastrophe that could unfold they could just dismiss it all as part of project fear and vote remain done nothing about it

Vote Remain, messed up this whole thing

This is their fault.

a reply to: Flavian

You make some valid points.

I agree there was no clear mandate, but there was still a majority in favour of leaving the EU.

The biggest betrayals have been by The Tory party deliberately doing everything possible to derail the Brexit process.
Only an idiot would advocate a complete cutting of ties with the EU without reaching agreement on some key issues.

The Tories have done everything possible to drag out negotiations; Cameron resigning delayed the process right from the outset, May dragged her heels and once negotiations eventually started she ensured nothing concrete could be agreed.
The UK had no clear objectives and had nothing but a mish-mash of lame arsed policies.

As a result the UK has very, very little bargaining power - I hate to say it but the EU holds all the cards at present.

The EU has acted in an entirely predictable manner - exploit and punish the UK and milk them for everything.
This serves a dual purpose; their intense dislike of the British and their never ending desire to drain us of every penny and resource and to deter other countries from seeking to leave the EU.

We need to free ourselves from the undemocratic, autocratic, riddled with corruption entity that is the EU.....but we need an agreed plan with clearly defined aims and objectives whilst negotiating from a strong position.....we have none of them at present.

I really don't know what our best course of action is.....and that frightens me because it makes us very, very vulnerable!

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Or is it part of some 'masterplan' to ignore The British people's wishes and ensure we don't leave the EU.....or am I giving 'them' too much credit?

If I'm being honest I'm struggling to get my head around it all and I haven't got a clue what is going on.....circles within circles.

But there's an age old maxim; Follow the money....who benefits most from all this confusion and who will gain the most once the end game is played out?
Not the ordinary, everyday British people that's for certain!

a reply to: Freeborn

Just curious.

What would be your views on a second referendum.

I personally think that the UK people should have a vote on the final deal and I say that because I don't think at the time we first went to vote on this issue any of us had any idea what we were really voting for because we had no idea what kind of Brexit deal we would be making.

Seems like its such a massive issue we should have the final say.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What would be your views on a second referendum.

I genuinely don't know.

There is so much confusion and misinformation flying around at present - by all sides - that I don't think anyone can make a truly qualified and reasoned opinion on anything at present.

And that confusion only serves the agenda of those who want the status quo to remain.

Personally I want this country and its elected assembly to be the ultimate law making body in this country. That is diametrically opposed to the very notion of the EU.
As such it should follow that Parliament has the ultimate say on any deal thrashed out with the EU.....but I don't trust any of the incumbents in Parliament to act either in accordance with The British peoples wishes or in their best interests.
A massive personal conflict.

I think any agreement with the EU must include some sort of mutually beneficial Free Trade agreement, but I want nothing to do with any sort of political union.
But I can see the benefits of some sort of common defence policy but I want an independent British Armed Forces.

Holding another straight forward In / Out referendum would serve no purpose at all.
The real conflict is whether the electorate should vote on any final agreement or should Parliament.